Government Operations Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

[Carl Trottier]

I would add protection of the employee against reprisal, yes.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Yes. In my mind that's inherent in not being afraid to come forward because of any retribution.

[Carl Trottier]

Yes.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I want to touch on some of the procedure. From reading the act, it seems to me there are many approaches an employee who feels they witnessed wrongdoing can take to avail themselves of the provisions of the act. The data here, of course, is aggregated over 10 years. I want to delve into some of it.

What procedure is used most often? Take, for instance, an employee who sees what he or she thinks is wrongdoing—of course, it's a judgment call—and alerts their supervisor, either orally or in writing. What is the next step, and how often does someone go directly to the commissioner as opposed to taking this sort of—

[Carl Trottier]

Okay. I'm glad you asked that question because it was touched upon earlier, and I didn't think I did it justice. I'm going to ask Mary Anne to walk us right through the steps, in detail.

[Mary Anne Stevens]

Thank you.

You have the data on general inquiries.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Right.

[Mary Anne Stevens]

That would be the first step that we would hope an employee would follow, so if they thought there might be something wrong, they would first talk to their supervisor and say, “I'm concerned about something”. In many cases it can be dealt with there and then. It could be miscommunication or that they're not aware of all of the information around something that's going on, and it can be taken care of then.

If it's not, then they could say, “I think there really is a problem here”, and it could be a formal disclosure to their supervisor, or their supervisor could tell them then that they have the option to go to the senior officer in the department, or to the commissioner if they prefer. It's completely the choice of the employee.

They would be asked to specify what their concern was clearly enough so that the senior officer could investigate and ask questions within the organization about the concern they had.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

For those who aren't necessarily familiar with the term “natural justice”, it's obviously referring in this sense to the procedural fairness. It's a concept we inherited from the Romans, and it's obviously meant to make sure both parties have a fair hearing and a chance to present their case where their interests are affected.

On the other side of the coin, does the procedure in place, in your opinion, adequately protect the alleged wrongdoer?

[Mary Anne Stevens]

You're right. The concept of natural justice is that if it's a circumstance in which the disclosure is about another individual, then that individual has to have the opportunity to also provide evidence and explain what went on. Sometimes all it takes is an explanation and clarification.

There are perhaps some concerns that the act isn't specific enough about protections for the alleged wrongdoer. The act wasn't really designed that way, for one person to make a statement about another person. It was seen as a more general approach to things.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I think that's what I'm getting at. Perhaps it was intentionally omitted from the act and it wasn't meant to protect the alleged wrongdoer, but there are still ways to make sure there is fairness in the process. That's what I'm trying to get at. In your opinion, is that fairness there in the process? We don't really understand any of the process, based on these numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson.

We'll go to Mr. McCauley for five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Before I get to my question, I just want to introduce a notice of motion that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates immediately undertake a study on the government's proposed acquisition of 18 F-18 Super Hornet jets, and that the Committee report its findings to the House of Commons no later than April 13, 2017.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, as you know, a notice of motion, which Mr. McCauley has just been speaking to, can be given at any time. Mr. McCauley is introducing it today. It will require 48 hours before that motion can be put to the committee. Once the motion is put to the committee, of course we will have an opportunity to debate it, and then subsequently vote upon it.

Mr. McCauley, would you care to give that to the clerk?

With respect to this study, Mr. McCauley, we'll continue with you for five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Great.

Very quickly, there are two big things. Is there a mechanism set up for all ranks of the public service to give feedback on how we can improve the act? We are reviewing it for the first time in several years. I'm sure you must have a lot of experience in terms of what we need to do, but is there anything set up through which you could collect ideas on how the act can be improved?

[Carl Trottier]

No, we don't have a process in place to review the act. This is where the act gets reviewed, right here and now. We are given the act in the form in which the government of the day gave it to us. Our responsibility and the commissioner's responsibility is to implement the act as it has been given.

We have experiences with the act in terms of, as Mary Anne was mentioning before, whether there is an appropriate protection for the wrongdoer and so on. We have those experiences, but we don't have a process to review the act.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

In your personal opinion, is it robust enough as it is?

[Carl Trottier]

I'd rather bring you some facts than my personal opinion. I'm just Carl here. I'd be interested in your personal opinions, to tell you the truth.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

In your collected facts, how best do we go about getting feedback from the 400,000 or so people who are affected by this? We get one kick at the can to make improvements over a five- or six-year period, so I'd hate for us to sit here and chat for five or six weeks saying....

[Carl Trottier]

Again, this isn't my opinion, but you are going to meet a lot of interesting people in this committee, and a lot of interesting witnesses who have a lot to say about the act itself. We're only the first ones here. I can see that this committee is very hungry for information we don't have. Hopefully your appetite will be satisfied when the commissioner and the tribunal come, as well as any other stakeholders who come and have information to share about the act.

Our sense is that the act is working well the way it is.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We're looking at about 300 or 400 people a year making investigations, out of about 400,000. Have we benchmarked that against the U.S., Britain, Australia, or other like-minded countries? I think it's fantastic if there are only 400 examples of whistle-blowing, but to me, it seems like a very small total. I think Mr. Drouin and Mr. Weir were getting at that as well.

[Carl Trottier]

I'll expand your question just a bit, because it might be of interest also.

We've also compared the structure of the act with those of the U.K., Australia, the United States, and—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Our provinces as well?

[Carl Trottier]

—some of the provinces. We've compared the structure and they're very similar. They're very much constructed in the same way, so we feel confident that there's a certain degree of similarity that exists among them.

More specific to your question, a few years back we did a comparison with other countries, and we came out very similar with the other countries in terms of numbers of complaints.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Just quickly, are any of the provinces doing anything very good that we should look at copying federally?